Proposal would require malpractice training

A state legislator wants to impose requirements on judges and attorneys in his bid to cut down on medical-malpractice lawsuits.

The proposal by Rep. Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff, would bar lawyers from filing a medical-malpractice lawsuit unless they were certified by the state Supreme Court as a “medical-malpractice attorney.” Thorpe’s bill does not define what it would take to be certified, leaving the details up to the state’s high court.

“The idea is to try to weed out the difference between good, legitimate attorneys that are practicing in the area of medical malpractice ... from the ambulance chasers,” he said. Thorpe said he envisions the certification process as establishing minimum standards.

HB 2465 also would allow these cases to be heard only by judges who also have been through training on medical-malpractice cases.

Thorpe said the reasoning is the same: “Let’s ensure that even a judge assigned to the case has a baseline understanding of the issue.”

The legislation is drawing fire from the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, which includes attorneys who represent plaintiffs in not just medical-malpractice but all types of death and personal-injury cases.

“This is a restriction on free enterprise,” organization spokesman Barrett Marson said. “Arizonans should be able to choose the lawyer that best fits them and their needs. This restricts competition and the free market.”

Pete Dunn, who lobbies for the Arizona Judges Association, said his clients have yet to take a position on the measure.

There’s also the argument that the measure specifically singles out medical malpractice for special attention, with no similar requirement existing now or proposed for any other type of lawsuit.

Thorpe agreed that some kinds of litigation, such as patent and intellectual-property law, can be far more complex.

He said, though, there’s a good reason for that distinction: the effect that malpractice lawsuits have on overall health-care costs — and not just for businesses and individuals.

“Our portion of the budget that has to do with health-related issues is huge,” Thorpe said.

He said the idea of putting restrictions on which attorneys can file malpractice lawsuits was suggested to him by doctors he knows.

Despite Thorpe’s call for specialists to handle medical-malpractice cases, his measure covers only judges and those who file the lawsuits. It imposes no such mandate on those hired by doctors and hospitals to mount a defense.

Thorpe said the distinction is justified.

He said those who specialize in filing malpractice have “chosen to go down that path.” By contrast, he said, a doctor or hospital may want to be represented by its regular defense counsel.

“I’m not sure I’d want to limit the defendant that way,” Thorpe said. “But folks that are kind of on the aggressive end of it, if you will, they’re the ones pushing for legal action, I certainly want to hold them to a certain standard.”

Marson questioned that logic.

“Of course it’s ridiculous to put restriction on plaintiffs that you don’t put on defendants,” he said. “Fairness dictates everybody should be held to the same standards.”

Marson also questioned why Thorpe would want to put doctors at a legal disadvantage, allowing them not to be represented by — yet going up against — patients whose attorneys have been through the certification process.

Thorpe said he sees his certification for both plaintiffs’ attorneys and judges more in the area of setting basic standards than in providing advanced training.

“I’m not really looking at anything terribly elaborate,” he said, saying it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide what would be appropriate training.

“So we might be talking four-hour training, six-hour training, a week, who knows?” he said.

He added he does not envision the training being anything like six months of night classes.

“I don’t want this to turn into a huge burden for any attorney,” he said.

Posting a comment to our website allows you to join in on the conversation. Share your story and unique perspective with members of the azcentral.com community.

Comments posted via facebook:

► Join the Discussion

azcentral.com has switched to the Facebook comment system on its blogs. Existing blog comments will display, but new comments will only be accepted via the Facebook comment system. To begin commenting, you must be logged into an active personal account on Facebook. Once you're logged in, you will be able to comment. While we welcome you to join conversations, readers are responsible for their comments and abuse of this privilege will not be tolerated. We reserve the right, without warning or notification, to remove comments and block users judged to violate our Terms of Service and Rules of Engagement. Facebook comments FAQ

Join thousands of azcentral.com fans on Facebook and get the day's most popular and talked-about Valley news, sports, entertainment and more - right in your newsfeed. You'll see what others are saying about the hot topics of the day.